Response To Son Of A Bitch

This is a response to an article "Son of a bitch" following a discussion about the responsibility / morality issues involved when a punter impregnates a prostitute.

Now, I would like to state clearly that I do not consider the bargirl innocent in this equation.

However neither is the punter.

No way.

You say the girl is a "professional". Well, she probably doesn't even come close to Dana's mileage.

Let's quit kidding ourselves here. In this case, the punter knows the game.

There are cases where the girl is just out of her native Isaan and knows shit. On the other end, there is not doubt on Dana's experience on the subject.

But let's just assume what is the most likely: Both Dana and the girl know the game.

A girl who makes sure she gets pregnant to extort money from an unwilling father is evil. No doubt about that.

A reader sent me a true story that recently happened in the UK, where a girl had sex with a guy with a condom, and once the guy left, took the condom and inseminated herself with the sperm. She got the baby and she got child pension from the guy.

This is disgustingly evil. No doubt.

Anyway, back to Dana. This is different. Dana knows that some girls will try to get a child and get child support. Don't tell me Dana never heard of that one before. That's a classic.

And yet, Dana, a professional punter, exposes himself to that risk. Dana goes bareback, and not just with one, but with every bargirl. This is not just "stupid". Dana does not sound "stupid" to me. This is evil.

After several years of bareback, how many baby does the guy have, for fuck's sake? Who knows? Certainly not he.

Does he care? Has he even stopped going bareback? No to both questions.

No. The guy just keep spreading his semen far and wide. He knows what he is doing. He is no victim.

If you don't question the morality of his behaviour, just whose morality do you question?

If the girl's conduct is evil, what do you call Dana's conduct?

Another thing. For a girl to attempt the "I have your baby, support me" scam, there are prerequisites.

Let me explain. For this scam to work, the girl must know the punter well enough to be sure to find him when comes the time. Otherwise, she will be stranded with a child and no income. A baby is not a boon, to a prostitute. She knows that after that,
her tits will sag, she may have a belly scar and her meat value will take a serious drop.

So unless she has reasonable assurances she will be able to reach the guy in 9 months, we can rule out the "baby support" scam attempt.

Let's say a girl goes bareback with the secret intent to get a baby support. She wouldn't try that on a one night stand, right? (almost no chance to find the guy after 9 months).

And yet, many will go bareback on a one night stand, if the stories on this and other websites are true. Dana once claimed he requested every girl to go bareback.

But on a one night stand, they certainly are not planning "baby support" scam. Too risky. They get pregnant but the father is already back in Farangland and they don't even have his name.

So if it is not to scam, why do they accept to go bareback? Because they don't think in terms of future. They think in terms of *now*. Many of them have habits to support, such as gambling and drugs. They need extra cash NOW.

They will mostly ask for the condom, but the punter insist / coaxes them to go bareback and even offers to pay extra. He doesn't remind them of the risks. On the contrary, he pretends it is safe to get his way, and that it will be fine.

So the girl says "yes" for the money. Not because she tries the "baby scam", but simply because of the very reason why she is the business. Money.

Now, a guy like Dana, who convinces the girl to go bareback, is not innocent! He is not a "victim of a scam".

Also, the girl that he impregnates doesn't immediately know she is pregnant. So how many girls ended up with Dana's child in their belly, not knowing who to turn to?

Sure, they have a good part of responsibility. But certainly not 100%.

And that argument that you don't like, the argument that the child is the one to suffer, well, the reason you don't like it, is because you haven't found any way to justify what happens to the child.

You can look at it and say "it's the prostitute's fault", or "it's the punter's fault", or "both", or even "all three of them, child included".

But by the end of the day, the result is the same. What is important is not "who to blame". I am not into the blaming business. When it happens, what do they do?

"But for the purposes of morality, this means little. Legality, especially in the US, may be another issue entirely. But here, we’re speaking of morality."

Excuse me!!! You don't see a morality issue here? What about "going to see a prostitute"? I don't know what moral rules you refer to, but the last time I checked, whoring was not considered a very moral stand.

Let's be clear. I too have "indulged" in the pleasures (and pains) of the Thai prostitution scene, so I don't pretend I am an example of virtue.

But while I have messed up a few times, I still recognize it was wrong and didn't improve my life one bit. In fact, it almost got me completely off tracks, but that's a completely different story all together.

Morally speaking, I note the following very obvious breaches:

1. The prostitute:
* She became a prostitute and uses sex and deception to get money.
* She may have tried the baby support scam against her punter's best interest.
* She knowingly breaks the laws of her country.
…

2. The punter:
* He became a punter
* He may have tried to coerce the girl into having sex bareback, which is against her best interest as he knew he had no intention of support her child if there ever was one.

* He knowingly breaks the law of his host country.
…

Now, you are a punter, and you tell me the prostitute should be held full responsible for that because the punter pays.

AH! AH! AH! Very funny.

Now, just a guess. If you ask the same question to a prostitute, what do you think her viewpoint will be?

As for me, the question is not "who do we blame"? What's done is done. The punter and the prostitute have a child.

The punter who deserts his child is a piece of junk. So is the prostitute who extorts good money and sends the kid live in the sticks (no pun intended).

Having a child with a prostitute unwillingly is not unlike catching AIDS, in some way. You still live, but your life will never be the same.

There is one issue left, and I wasn't sure I wanted to take it on, because there has been humongous volumes of controversy on the subject, but my reply wouldn't be complete if I did not: Abortion.

You seem to take abortion for granted, a simple formality, with maybe a little financial aspect to it.

First of all, you and I are men. We will never really comprehend what it means (not this life anyway) to have a child. To have life growing in our womb and killing it (Let alone mention any consequence on our health)

That many women choose to bring a child to term even when it is clear they will have to raise it alone shows that there is more to it than the hope for financial support. It's not "keeping a toy", as Dana expressed. In fact, many prostitutes
are also mothers that were deserted by their Thai boyfriends and who decided to keep the Child nevertheless, and even became prostitute to support their child.

(By the way this also shows that the reason why they keep child is not necessarily "to scam the punter".)

A child is alive right inside the womb. Kill him / her inside the womb and it's called abortion. Kill him / her outside the womb is called murder.

To me, aborting is not an obvious choice. And Thai prostitute being Thai, I doubt this choice is obvious to them either.

Anyway, it's late, and I could write volumes on the subjects, but I am getting tired. Still, my main points are done.

Prostitution isn't moral because it can fuck your life up, financially, emotionally, and in may other ways (like health-wise). And the Thai scene is prostitution, no matter how attractive it / she might look.

Stickman's thoughts:

I am going to have to bite my tongue here, I really am. In certain circumstances, you have a fair point and I can't deny that, but I'm sorry, I'm largely in the Dana / Caveman camp on this one. Still, every instance where a farang customer gets a Thai bargirl pregnant should be evaluated on the relative merits (or otherwise) of that particular case.